Talk:Yasukuni Shrine

The Enshrinement List
「Ａ級戦犯の合祀は、旧陸軍の流れをくみ、元軍人が仕切った旧厚生省援護局（現厚生労働省社会・援護局）調査課が六六年、事務次官ら幹部に断りなくＡ級戦犯の名簿（祭神名票）を靖国神社に送ったことに始まる. これを受けて、東条英機内閣で大東亜相だった青木一男氏（故人）ら二人の元Ａ級戦犯がリードする神社の総代会が七〇年に合祀の方針を決定した. 元海軍少佐で、義父が戦犯として処刑された松平氏は、合祀に踏み切るアンカー役だった. 」 http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/00/kakushin/20060721/mng_____kakushin000.shtml Vapour

Architecture
Can more information be provided as to the design, layout, and construction of the shrine? The article seems heavy in politics but very light in architecture. For example, how does it compare with the war memorials of other nations?

Why no controversy section?
Given that the shrine is best known for enshrining convicted war criminals and serving as a gathering point for Japanese ultranationalists, it seems quite strange that this article makes no mention of these facts at all. 120.17.39.216 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * yes this is odd. There is also no mention of its continued symbolic value to politics. With prime ministers or former prime ministers also choosing to visit or not to visit the shrine. Tornbetween (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tornbetween and IP - see Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine. It's mentioned+linked in the middle of the second lead paragraph.
 * If I had to guess, the idea was to split the building itself from the political storm surrounding it. Not sure if I agree with that process, but that's the status quo. Couruu (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. As of now there is a small section of the article that covers 2 parts of the controversy article, the war criminal portion in great detail. Maybe it would be better to instead leave a reference to the Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine article and add a small summary? I would be up to make this change when I am free. Of course it can always be reverted. Tornbetween (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE = according to wiki rules, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." and
 * "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)"
 * The guidelines offer an excellent example of how to incorporate information regarding minority perspectives. the controversy surrounding the shrine is not a minority view. I don't understand why there is a separate article for information about the shrine's controversy. wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to provide a wide variety of information, including information about sensitive topics. Shouldn't the two articles be merged?
 * WP:OM - "Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend." LilAhok (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine is 6,000 words of readable prose, while Yasukuni Shrine itself is around 2,500 - combined, they would probably make up around 8,000 (eliminating redundancies). If merged, this article would become around 75% controversy - which is undue weight.
 * I do believe a solution similar to Nestle would be appropriate - a controversy section outlining the main issues (that isn't buried under History), with a "main article" link to the other page. Couruu (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree, a nested controversy section linking to the larger article seems appropriate. I will get to work on this when I find the time after the semester has quieted down. Tornbetween (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)